“This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.Verily
I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because
Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything
that displeases them.No compulsion is to be on them.Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses.Should
anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His
Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against
all that they hate.No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.The Muslims are to fight for them.If
a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place
without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her
church to pray.Their churches are to be respected. They are neither
to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their
covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant
till the Last Day (end of the world).”

On his visit to Riyadh, John Kerry, the US secretary of state, will encounter a strategic partner that has become too bewildered by the changing Arab world.

A chorus of important princely Saudi voices have already been heard
before the visit, pointing to disappointment amounting to anger over the
failure of the United States to act in Syria and promising serious
shifts in the Saudi-US partnership. The two Al-Faisal brothers, Saud and
Turki, in addition to Bandar bin Sultan, have left no doubt that Saudi
Arabia is distressed by recent US policies vis-à-vis Syria and Iran.

Over the last decade, Saudi Arabia struggled to reassure its own
people and the international community that it still matters, not only
for its oil, but also for its claims to lead the Arab world. Away from
both rhetoric and wishful thinking, Saudi realities are today very
different from what they used to be in the 1970s, when for a brief
moment King Faisal had the potential to play a leading role. Yet Saudi
Arabia today is far from that fleeting historical moment. Saudi Arabia
consolidated its partnership with the West in the shadow of the Cold
War. But as that war gave way to more complex political outcomes, the
West’s reliance on Saudi Arabia was withering, regardless of how
important Saudi resources are. Saudi Arabia was previously thought of as
part of any solutions that deal with the region’s many problems, but
now it may have actually become part of the problems facing the Arab
region after its stumbling uprisings. The Saudis struggle today to
reassert their position for many reasons.

First, Saudi Arabia today lacks charismatic and energetic leadership
capable of energizing not only its domestic politics, but also foreign
relations. Internally, the Saudi monarchy is at a standstill, refusing
to acknowledge that it is out of touch with the serious changes that
swept the Arab world over the last three years. The leadership is still
relying on old strategies to keep the winds of change away from the
Arabian desert. It resorts to a combination of carrots and sticks, with
the latter often becoming easily deployed in an attempt to stifle debate
and intimidate courageous activists.

This leadership still thinks that change can only come from above,
with society remaining at the receiving end of royal largesse and
initiative. It cannot comprehend that it rules over a different
generation engaged with current affairs and aspiring toward real
participation in decision-making. When most of the senior leadership is
above the age of 80, there is a serious generation gap difficult to
bridge with paternalism and the promise of subsidies. The leadership has
only succeeded in keeping a lid on the implosion as a result of the
ongoing instabilities in neighboring countries.

Saudis are meant to learn a lesson that equates political change with
chaos, death and turmoil. As long as this instability continues, the
leadership can rest assured that nobody will rock the boat. Then Saudis
must watch those imaginary enemies, first Iran, then the Muslim
Brotherhood, with their secret cells that allegedly plot to destabilize
the country. If that’s not enough, there are always those conspiracy
theories that circulate about an omnipotent superpower clandestinely
planning the partition of Saudi Arabia. Consequently, Saudis are
regularly injected with a fair dose of fear and apprehension about their
future, to the extent that they do not even think about change. Ruling
by fear of an unknown future and multiple alleged enemies in a turbulent
region guarantees that society remains acquiescent.

Externally, Saudi Arabia has failed to recognize its limited
capacities when dealing with regional issues from the occupation of Iraq
to the recent Syrian crisis. As it has inflated its role in the region
and sold propaganda about this role to its own constituency, any setback
is immediately considered as threatening its stature. Saudis have been
sold a good amount of propaganda about their government’s commitment not
only to Arab causes, but also those of the Muslim world. Statistics
about its overseas spending on these causes make big news, but not
recently.

While in the past Saudis took for granted that their government
should help Arabs and Muslims, more recently they have begun to resent
this charity. The more they experience duress in meeting basic needs,
the more they question the logic of dedicating a considerable amount of
wealth to helping others. Why should new housing complexes be built in
neighboring countries as gifts from the Saudi government while more than
70% of Saudis do not own a house? Such legitimate questions have been
suppressed in the past but now ordinary citizens often ask them. Saudis
are more inclined to question their government’s logic in pursuing
charitable projects abroad as they become more aware of their own unmet
needs. They have also learned the hard way that patronizing the Arabs
has not always pacified them or turned them into straightforward
clients.

Second, the Saudi government has failed to be flexible in its dealing
with challenges both at home and abroad. A conservative monarchy with
multiple aging heads is not a good starting point for flexibility. Since
King Abdullah came to power in 2005, the image of the reformist monarch
as a humanitarian father has collided with the reality of slow reform,
corruption and increasing repression. Abdullah is truly sidelined as an
arbiter of Saudi internal politics, which remains the prerogative of the
Ministry of Interior, headed by Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, and its many
bureaucratic branches.

The king’s son, Mutaib,
may continue to play the game and keep the myth of reform going, but
contradictions in the system are already obvious. So Abdullah empowers
women and appoints them to the consultative council while the Ministry
of Interior curbs their campaign to drive and
arrests male supporters of the campaign. Abdullah initiated the
national dialogue forum amidst the euphoria of reform, which has
evaporated with time.

Abdullah also saw no harm in mixing between the sexes in newly
founded universities, but the Ministry of Interior, through religious
police in search of immorality, continues to harass both men and women.
Such contradictions are symptomatic of a Saudi leadership divided on
reform and, in fact, short of formulating a comprehensive reformist
agenda. The introduction of minimalist social reforms collides with the
stagnation of the political system; hence contradictions are bound to be
symptomatic of the old style of government.

The same inflexibility is a characteristic of the way the Saudi
government conducts its foreign policy. In today’s world there seems to
be no room for eternal enemies or friends. Even allies seem to fall out
over covert intrigues and spying. Saudi Arabia has been accustomed to
see the world in black and white, but it should develop its skills to
deal with gray areas. If John Kerry has a chance to succeed in his visit
to Riyadh, he must point to the Saudi leadership that the old
inflexibility at both the domestic and regional levels threatens to
perpetuate the Arab region’s descent into more chaos, not to mention
Saudi Arabia itself.

Because Saudi Arabia has no choice but to listen to the power that
guarantees its security, I do not think Kerry’s task should be
impossible. With the prospect of the United States reaching out to other
regional powers such as Iran, Saudi Arabia should not miss the
opportunity to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Madawi Al-Rasheedis
a visiting professor at the Middle East Centre at the London School of
Economics and Political Science. She has written extensively about the
Arabian Peninsula, Arab migration, globalization, religious
trans-nationalism and gender. On Twitter: @MadawiDr

A poster
of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah is behind Lebanese soldiers in Tripoli,
Lebanon, where gunfire broke out between people loyal to different sides
in the Syria war, Oct. 23, 2012. (photo by REUTERS/Omar Ibrahim )

The media coverage of the war in Syria examines only
military, diplomatic and humanitarian action. It ignores profound
transformation. However, one does not survive a sea of ​​violence
without changing profoundly. From Damascus, where he has lived for two
years, Thierry Meyssan describes this evolution.

While in Damascus, the Special Envoy of the Secretaries General of
the Arab League and the UN, Lakhdar Brahimi, presented “his” draft peace
conference project, Geneva 2. A conference whose objective would be to
end the “civil war”. This terminology rehashes the analysis of one side
against another, of those who argue that this conflict is a logical
continuation of the “Arab Spring” against those who argue that it has
been manufactured, fueled and manipulated from the outside.

The war according to the armed opposition

For Westerners and the majority of the National Coalition, Syria is
experiencing a revolution. Its people have supposedly risen up against a
dictatorship and aspire to live in a democracy like the United States.
However, this view is contradicted by the Gulf Cooperation Council, the
Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army. For them, the problem
is not one of freedom, but the personality of Bashar al-Assad. They
would be willing to keep the same institutions if the President agreed
to step aside for one of his vice-presidents. However, this version is
in turn contradicted by the fighters on the ground, for whom the problem
is not the personality of the president, but the tolerance that he
stands for. Their goal is to establish a Wahhabi system where religious
minorities would be subdued or destroyed, and where the Constitution
would be replaced by Sharia.

Freedom of expression

At first, when snipers were killing people, they said that it was the
regime gunmen who were trying to impose fear. When cars exploded, it
was said it was a false flag attack by the secret services. When a
massive attack killed members of the Security Council, Assad was accused
of having eliminated his rivals. Today, nobody doubts that these crimes
were the work of jihadists and they continue to commit more.

In the beginning, there was emergency law. From 1963 on,
demonstrations were banned. Only a trickle of foreign journalists was
allowed entry and their activities were closely monitored. Today,
emergency law has been lifted. There are still few demonstrations
because of the fear of terrorist attacks. Numerous are the foreign
journalists in Damascus. They move freely without any supervision. Yet
most continue to report that the country is a horrible dictatorship.
They are allowed to go on in hopes that they will tire of lying when
their governments cease to preach the “overthrow of the regime.”

Initially, Syrians did not watch national television channels. They
considered these to be propaganda and their preferred source was Al-
Jazeera. On live TV, they followed the exploits of the “revolution” and
the crimes of the “dictatorship”. But with time, they found themselves
confronted directly with events. They saw for themselves the atrocities
of the peudo-revolutionaries and they often owed their survival solely
to the national army. Today, people watch national television much more,
and especially Al- Mayadeen, a Lebanese-Iraqi channel that recovered
the audience of Al Jazeera in the Arab world and who is developing an
openly nationalist point of view.

Freedom of conscience

At first, the armed opposition claimed to be multi-denominational.
People from religious minorities supported it. Then came the Islamic
Courts sentencing to death and slitting the throats of the “bad” Sunni
“traitors” to their community, the Alawites and Shiites, tortured in
public, and Christians expelled from their homes. Today everyone
understands that one is always a heretic when one is judged by “the pure
ones”, the Takfirists.

While intellectuals argue that Syria was destroyed and needs to be
redefined, people know what it is and are often willing to die for it.
Ten years ago, every family had a teenager they were trying to exempt
from military service. Only the poor were considering a career in the
armed forces. Today, many young people enrol in the army and their
elders join the popular militias. They all defend eternal Syria where
various religious communities live side by side and they all venerate
the same God when they have one.

During the conflict, many Syrians themselves evolved. At first they
mostly watched events from the sidelines, most declaring not seeing
themselves in any camp. After two and a half years of terrible
suffering, everyone who remained in the country had to choose to
survive. War is but an attempt by the colonial powers to blow on the
embers of obscurantism to incinerate civilization.

Political freedom

For myself, having known Syria for a decade and having lived in
Damascus for two years, I realize how much the country has changed. Ten
years ago, each spoke in a low voice of the problems he had encountered
with mukhabarats poking their noses into everything and anything. In
this country, of which the Golan is occupied by Israel, the Secret
Service had indeed acquired extravagant power. Yet they saw and knew
nothing of the preparations for war, of the tunnels what were dug and of
the weapons that were imported. Today, a large number of corrupt
officials have fled abroad, the mukhabarats have refocused on their
mission of homeland defense about which only the jihadists have to
complain.

Ten years ago, the Ba’ath Party was constitutionally leader of the
nation. It alone was allowed to field candidates in elections, but it
was already no longer a mass party. Institutions were gradually moving
away from the citizens. Today, it’s hard to follow the birth of
political parties as they are so numerous. Anyone can run for office and
win. Only the “democratic” opposition from Paris and Istanbul have
decided to boycott rather than lose.

Ten years ago, one did not talk politics in cafes but only at home
and only with people you knew. Today, everyone is talking about politics
everywhere in government-controlled areas and never in areas controlled
by armed opposition groups.
Where is the dictatorship? Where is the democracy ?

Class reactions

The war is also a class conflict. The rich, who have assets abroad,
left when Damascus was attacked. They loved their country, but
especially wished to protect their lives and property.

The bourgeois were terrified. They paid “revolutionary” taxes when
insurgents demanded, and asserted state support when the army questioned
them. Worried, they awaited the departure of President Assad which
Al-Jazeera announced as imminent. They only lost their anxiety when the
United States abandoned plans to bomb the country. Today, they think
only of redeeming themselves by supporting the associations of families
of martyrs.

The little people knew from the beginning where it was at. There were
those who saw the war as a means to take revenge for their economic
conditions, and those who wanted to defend freedom of conscience and
free public services.

The United States and Israel, France and the United Kingdom, Turkey,
Qatar and Saudi Arabia who waged the secret war and who lost, did not
anticipate this result: to survive, Syria has liberated its energies and
regained its freedom.

If the Geneva Conference 2 stands, the great powers will decide
nothing there. The next government will not be the result of a
diplomatic arrangement. The only power of the conference will be to
propose a solution which can be applied only after it has been ratified
by a popular referendum.

This war has bled Syria, half of its cities and infrastructure were
destroyed to satisfy the appetites and fantasies of Western and Gulf
powers. If something positive emerges from Geneva 2, it will be the
financing of the reconstruction by those who have made the country
suffer.

Saudi Decision on Security Council Is About Syria

lebanon Pulse

نبض لبنان

A poster
of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah is behind Lebanese soldiers in Tripoli,
Lebanon, where gunfire broke out between people loyal to different sides
in the Syria war, Oct. 23, 2012. (photo by REUTERS/Omar Ibrahim )

Saudi Arabia’s decision to decline a
UN Security Council seat is neither ordinary nor fleeting. Many may
criticize the move, while others might wonder how Saudi Arabia can
demand reforming the United Nations, which arose in the aftermath of
World War II, while the kingdom still needs reforming itself and is far
from democratic. While international parties, most notably Washington,
tried to play down the decision, and others considered it a routine way
of criticizing the international system, the Saudis' move was
nonetheless surprising and shrewd.

Summary⎙ Print Saudi Arabia’s decision to decline a Security Council seat expresses anger in some Sunni Muslim quarters about the Syria war.

The first to notice this was Russia, an old Middle East player that
today is taking on a new role as the United States focuses on its
internal affairs while seeking regional compromises. By quickly
expressing its bewilderment at the decision,
Moscow essentially recognized the significance and dimensions of it,
the primary aim being to strengthening the negotiating positions of the
kingdom and its Arab allies, especially in light of the looming US
withdrawal from Afghanistan, the explosive situation in Sudan,
harbingers of the Arab Spring, and other developments. What may end up
determining the shape of the Middle East in the next phase, however, is
the Geneva II conference on the Syrian crisis, especially with Russia
having succeeded diplomatically, and Iran militarily, in prolonging the
Syrian regime’s life.

The other and more important aspect of the Saudi decision lies in the
kingdom’s identity and roles. One should not belittle the decision,
ignore its real causes, or consider Saudi Arabia a mere US protectorate
that obeys Washington, which affords it security and strategic cover. In
fact, Saudi Arabia’s decision was significant because it resonates in
the Arab and Sunni Muslim street, which has been accumulating
disappointments and experiencing growing frustration as a result of
erratic international politics and the Barack Obama administration’s
sharp turns.

One should not forget that Saudi Arabia occupies a leadership position
in the Islamic world. It was recently joined by Egypt, the main center
of gravity in the Arab world, after its relations with Washington
reached a new low due to the US stance toward the Mohammed Morsi
government and its decision to suspend aid to the Egyptian military. Even Turkey, the third “Sunni pillar” so to speak, has expressed understanding for the Saudi position.
The issue is about widespread Sunni resentment among Arab states from
the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic Ocean. Of importance here, the Saudis'
decision reflects this popular anger.

The Saudi statement
rejecting the Security Council seat criticized the United Nations for
failing to find solutions to Middle East crises. Its complaints included
failing to deal with the nuclear threat by not imposing effective
supervision on the Iranian nuclear program and not finding a solution to
the Syrian crisis and ending the related humanitarian tragedy unseen in
recent decades. They also highlighted the failure to craft a just and
comprehensive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict that takes into
account the conscience of the Arab street at a minimum. The
Saudis called for the need to reform the United Nations, particularly
its decision-making process involving the veto system. This position is in sync with a previous French request for suspending the veto power when dealing with major crises involving large-scale crimes.

The Saudis' rejection also has political dimensions. The US-Saudi
relationship has always been close, but that is of little comfort
to countries susceptible to falling under Iranian influence . These
countries are concerned, for example, by how the United States decided
to halt aid to Egypt while at the same time US representatives in Geneva
were discussing the parameters for lifting the economic sanctions on
Iran. Although none of the sanctions have yet been lifted, the new
policy of openness is not associated with parallel gestures to reassure
the anti-Iran contingent (excluding Israel) in the region.

The Syrian issue is proof of that and is no doubt at the core of the problem. Saudi Arabia openly disapproves of how the Syrian crisis
was reduced to the chemical weapons issue. The US-Russia agreement on
destroying the weapons did not include a settlement for ending the war,
but instead left the crisis open-ended. The United States seemed to only
care about Israel’s security, appearing indifferent to the Syrian
people’s plight and the effects of that tragedy on the Arab and Muslim
conscience. In short, the so-called US allies find themselves facing a
declining US role, to Russia’s advantage, and a rising Iranian tide,
from Tehran to Baghdad to Beirut. It is as if the US allies are the ones
paying the price for the US rapprochement with Iran.

In Iraq, the Sunnis are marginalized. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s
government has failed to reunite the country, which has fallen under
Tehran's influence. The situation in Lebanon is stalemated, with the
decision on forming a government having collided with the desires of
Hezbollah, Iran’s military wing on the Mediterranean. Hezbollah is
insisting on a “blocking third” [in the cabinet] and on formal
recognition of its “army-people-resistance” triad, which would allow it
to keep its weapons outside the state's authority.

Syria has been torn apart and emptied of its people. Millions of displaced persons are
flooding neighboring countries, threatening the region’s security and
stability in ways unseen since World War II. Neither the Security
Council nor the broader international community has been able to do
anything to stop it. All they have done is give the Nobel Peace
Prize to the team entrusted with dismantling Syria’s chemical
weapons. The most dangerous aspect of this situation is its potential
effect on the victims and others. If the events of 9/11 revealed
anything, it is the correlation between repression and violence, and
feelings of humiliation and recourse to terror.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Egypt may not be model democracies, but
they do represent Arab moderation, which must be sustained by taking at
least a minimum of its interests into account. The alternative is the
growth of jihadist groups, which will not be confined to a geographic
area, but will spread to any mind or conscience that feels offended or
deprived. A major crisis, like that involving Syria, cannot be reduced
to its chemical weapons aspect. There is still time to address the
crisis before it turns, like its predecessors, into a cause of war and a
source of terrorism. The Saudi decision to reject a Security Council
seat should be seen from that perspective.

The Saudis' action may be a warning signal about the possible dangers
to come if the kingdom were to withhold its support for the ongoing
diplomatic process, which has thus far proved incapable of finding
solutions. In such a case, Saudi Arabia may decide to withdraw the two
cards it holds — Arab moderation and Sunni representation coupled with
Islamic legitimacy — both of which are necessary for any future
settlement.

Sami Nader is
an economist, Middle Eastern affairs analyst and communications expert
with extensive expertise in corporate strategy and risk management. He
currently directs the Levant Institute for Strategic Affairs, focusing
on economics and geopolitics of the Levant, and is a professor for USJ
University in Beirut. On Twitter: @saminader

President
of the Military Council of the so-called 'free Syrian army' in the
province of Aleppo resigned on Sunday from his post in protest against
what he described an international community "conspiracy" against the
Syrian people.

"Because of some people's refusal to heed calls for unity. which led
to the loss of fronts, supply routes and Sfeira city (east of Aleppo), I
announce my resignation from the leadership of the Revolutionary
Military Council in Aleppo," Colonel Abdul-Jabbar Okaidi said in a video
statement.

"The blessed revolution has torn off the last mask on the face of the
international community", which is "conspiring against this people and
against this revolution," he said.

Stating reasons for his resignation, Okaidi mentioned "the
fragmentation of the political and military opposition which resulted in
"the downturn on ground".

Okaidi also lashed out at the exiled opposition "who represent no one
but yourselves," stressing they have turned their backs on Syria and
have detached themselves from it completely," he said.

In the video, which was shared widely online, Okaidi also criticized
some rebel leaders on the ground, whom he referred to as "warlords":

"Stop... racing each other for power and for your kingdoms... Go back to how you were" at the start of the revolt, he said.

On the other hand, he saluted what he described as "the Mujahideen
rebels heroes" who "wrote the greatest epics of heroism and pride away
from the showing off," in an implicit belief that killing the Syrian
people and sabotaging the whole country is a sign of heroism.

The strategic city of Sfeira has been seized by the FSA several
months ago. It's fall has given rise to fears for Aleppo city since
Ministry of Defense factories, which produces defense weapons and all
kinds of other goods, are located on its edges.

Sfeira's fall means the road to Aleppo from the east is open.

Okaidi defected from the loyalist army in May 2012 to join the
military opposition against Syrian government. He led Aleppo battle then
the opposition military council of the province.

The Syrian national military launched a wide-scale military operation
in May 2013 in the country's main provinces to restore security and
release citizens from terrorist threats.

Syria was hit by a violent unrest since mid-March 2011, where the
Syrian government accuses foreign actors, mainly the Saudi Arabia and
Turkey, of orchestrating the conflict by supporting the militant
opposition groups with arms and money.

The Syrian Armed Forces continued operations against the armed terrorist groups in many areas on Tuesday, killing scores of them and destroying their weaponry, munitions and equipment, including a boat in al-Rastan Lake in Homs, SANA reported.

In details, the Syrian army units
achieved significant advance in Aleppo south eastern countryside and
destroyed dozens of terrorists’ hideouts and gatherings in many areas in
the province.

The army units also clashed with
terrorists who tried to attack military posts in the area of Maheen in
Homs countryside and eliminated the assailants.

A military source told SANA that the
army destroyed a boat loaded with weapons and ammunition in al-Rastan
Lake in Homs countryside, adding that the terrorists were trying to
smuggle the weapons into the area of al-Houla.

The Syrian military ambushed members of
terrorist groups on al-Seen-Palmyra highway in Damascus Countryside,
killing scores of them and destroying two machinegun-equipped vehicles
and a 14,5 mm machinegun.

Units of the Syrian armed forces on
Tuesday wholly eliminated armed terrorist groups and destroyed their
dens and gatherings in several areas in Daraa.

In a different context, scores of
terrorists were killed when a number of explosive devices they were
preparing suddenly went off in al-Nakhleh area, according to the source.

The
opposition UK-based Syrian Observatory reported that the Kurdish
People’s Protection Units clashed with militants of ISIL, Nusra and FSA,
expelling them from the Asfar, Najjar and Tal Half areas of Ras al-Ain
countryside in Hasaka province.

It added that fierce clashes have
erupted between the two parties since the dawn of Tuesday in Manajeer
area which is the last ISIL position in Ras al-Ain city.

Local Editorhttp://uprootedpalestinians.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/syrian-army-strikes-terrorists-across-country-kurds-rout-isil-from-19-towns/The Syrian army on Monday carried out wide operations against
terrorists’ gatherings, killing dozens, injuring others and securing
several areas, according to SANA.

The Syrian army restored peace and stability to al-Aziza in Aleppo countryside as it eliminated all the terrorist groups there.

The Syrian army also eliminated
terrorist groups in Ein al-Jamajmeh village, Aleppo, while weapons and
ammunition loaded in terrorists’ cars were destroyed on al-Bab-Aleppo
road.

The Syrian military also killed members
of armed terrorist groups in the areas of Dawar al-Dalleh in Maaret
al-Numan and Kafr Battikh, Fillon, Korin and Binnesh in Idleb.

The Syrian army ambushed a group of
terrorists in Abo al-Shamat to the east of al-Dmeir city in Damascus
Countryside, according to a military source.

Over 400 militants who belong to
“Capital’s Shield Brigade” surrendered to the Syrian army in Damascus
countryside, according to Russia Today.

In Daraa, the Syrian army further
foiled a suicide terrorist’s attempt to detonate a car bomb packed with a
big amount of explosives near Bilal Mosque in al-Manshiyeh area.

An official source told SANA reporter
that the army members destroyed the car before arriving in the
densely-populated neighborhood, killing the suicide terrorist with no
casualties among citizens.

The source noted that the operation was
carried out in cooperation with the residents who informed of the car
bomb which was prepared in al-Nakhleh area near al-Sad al-Sharqi in
Daraa where armed terrorist groups affiliated to al-Nusra Front were
stationed .

In Hama the Syrian army units killed 6
terrorists and destroyed their cars which are loaded with weapons and
ammunition in Kharab Askar and Tal al-Jayer areas in Qamishli
countryside, according to an official source.

The Syrian military eradicated all the militant groups in Hazm
al-Wastani in Homs countryside and restored peace and stability in the
area.

In a different context, Kurdish
fighters have driven ISIL militants from 19 towns and villages across
northeastern Syria in recent days, a week after capturing a key Iraqi
border crossing, according to the opposing UK-based Syrian Observatory
for Human Rights.

“Since Saturday, a total of 19 localities have fallen into the hands of Kurdish fighters.”